Why There's a New Batman

[philipj]

I've been thinking lately about how some of DC's biggest characters aren't or haven't been interesting for a long time. Currently, I can think of Wonder Woman and, up until a few months ago, Batman. A year ago, I would have said Superman, but World of New Krypton changed some things.

Marvel, I feel, used to have this same problem. Spider-Man was a boring guy in his 30s, but then Brand New Day came around and gave him problems. Captain America was just a guy beating up other guys with a shield, but then Brubaker came and gave Cap memory issues, and then a new villain, and than an entirely new status quo. The Fantastic Four may be the only big title I can think of that Marvel hasn't "revived."

Why weren't these characters interesting? It's simply because they got to be too good. I don't mean the books were written so well that readers practically OD'd on the awesomeness. I mean, literally, Bruce Wayne got too good at being Batman. There wasn't a mystery he couldn't solve. There wasn't a kung fu master he couldn't best in combat. There wasn't an acid and base he couldn't somehow turn into a smokebomb.

One of the first things you learn in writing, particularly screenwriting, is that, without a character arc, you have nothing. Take, for example, Star Wars. Had Luke Skywalker started off as the most incredible Jedi Knight in all of the galaxy, he would have had nowhere to go. Instead, Luke starts off as a miserable farmboy who dreams of adventure in the cosmos. And, through love, loss, and a lightsaber, he finds his adventure. He goes from Point A (miserable farmboy) to Point B (Jedi Knight and sister-kisser).

Now, try this same thing with a recent Bruce Wayne story. Most stories are as such: Batman encounters a villain, applies his Bat skills, and bests the villain. No change. No arc. Bruce Wayne begins at Point A and stays there like the Batmobile with engine problems.

Enter Dick Grayson, former Boy Wonder, Teen Titan, and acrobat. Giving Dick Grayson the cowl means that a less experienced Batman is in Gotham City. Dick Grayson has room to grow as Batman. He may be starting at Point A (newcomer to the cowl) and we can only hope that writers like Grant Morrison and Paul Dini will take him to Points B through Z.

I'm not saying that Bruce Wayne is obsolete. In fact, I can't wait for Bruce to come back (we all know it's going to happen) and shake up the new Gotham City status quo. The important thing to remember here is that, unlike the 90s when characters changed or died simply to introduce a new #1 and a flashy new outfit, I think that character changes in comics today is definitely a good thing. Hal Jordan came back, and now Green Lantern is a must-read. Spider-Man got a new status quo, and despite the uproar of foul play and deals with the devil, the book is admittedly much better than it has been in years.

So, when DC says, A New Batman? I say, yes.

But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?

[sullivan85]

Not a bad theory at all! I also think there has to be a new Batman so that in a couple of years, Bruce can come back (event storyline) bringing with him new baggage to work through (new character arc for Bruce).

[siraim]

Do you think it had to be though? Was Bruce Wayne so far along in his character development that there were no more areas for growth? Did he have to die for there to be new stories? I'm enjoying the current arc of the Batbooks but I don't necessarily think Bruce had to die to pull interesting stories out of the characters.

That being said, it's hard to say where we'd be with Batman, Cap, Flash or GL if the characters hadn't died. In the case of Cap and (eventually) Batman, the arc will be guided by a single writer pulling all the strings. In the case of Flash and GL, it's the work of a good writer pulling strings on events that were laid out years earlier.

[humphrey-lee]

I'm gonna go with "DC was hoping killing Bruce Wayne would make Final Crisis an even bigger seller, it'd create media hype for that and Battle for the Cowl, and they knew/know that the books will more or less sell the same just because they say Batman on them, and if they don't, they can always find some half-assed reason to bring him back". In comics, I'm honestly gonna say that's probably the safest bet to why the Big Two do anything they do when it comes to killing someone.

[philipj]

Do you think it had to be though? Was Bruce Wayne so far along in his character development that there were no more areas for growth? Did he have to die for there to be new stories? I'm enjoying the current arc of the Batbooks but I don't necessarily think Bruce had to die to pull interesting stories out of the characters.

That being said, it's hard to say where we'd be with Batman, Cap, Flash or GL if the characters hadn't died. In the case of Cap and (eventually) Batman, the arc will be guided by a single writer pulling all the strings. In the case of Flash and GL, it's the work of a good writer pulling strings on events that were laid out years earlier.

I'm not sure if it was the ONLY way, but would any of us really believe it if Bruce Wayne had a psychotic breakdown? Or if he messed up as Batman and had to fix his mistakes?

Bruce Wayne has been elevated to such a high point that it's hard for us to imagine him as a human character. He's practically indestructible and infallible.

[siraim]

I'm not sure if it was the ONLY way, but would any of us really believe it if Bruce Wayne had a psychotic breakdown? Or if he messed up as Batman and had to fix his mistakes?

Bruce Wayne has been elevated to such a high point that it's hard for us to imagine him as a human character. He's practically indestructible and infallible.

When Batman: RIP was ongoing, what was the consensus over the sanity of Bruce? It was a device that he managed to find a place for himself to retreat to when his mind was being broken down, but they could have just as easily let him slip over the edge.

I agree with your premise that a character needs to grow in order for the story to have any weight and that modern comics have so much continuity that finding ways to "grow" the characters could be difficult or impossible. I'm just not sure death always has to be the answer.. sometimes it's as simple as a deal with Mephisto. ;)

[johnferrigno]

The OPs point was spot-on, but the problem is that comic books are not written like screenplays. The difference is, screenplays have an actual arc. There is a beginning middle and end, or in screenwriting terms, a first, second and third act.

The inherent problem with comic books as a medium for storytelling (monthly, open ended comics anyway) is that they are ALL second act. There is never going to be an "ending." Also, the characters have to remain relatively unchanged from month to month. The Spider-Man you read about in 1967 is supposed to be fundamentally the same as the Spider-Man you read about in 1982 and 2009. The characters have to remain mostly constant, so they have to avoid change.

The problem with this is that change is the basis for great storytelling, from a writing theory point of view.

This is why series with an actual ending "Sandman, preacher, Y: The Last Man) tend to be so highly thought of in the comics field. Unlike other monthly titles that will go on indefinitely, the characters in these books CAN change, grow, even die. There is a real story arc.

But if you are writing a Spider-Man story, at the end of the day, when your arcs are all finished, Spider-Man has to be basically the same as when you started. People who pick up a Spider-Man cmic are expecting a certain thing and they are supposed to get it. When you walk into a Burger king, if they had no hamburgers, but offered you Chinese food instead, you would presumably be pretty angry. You had an expectation when you entered the Burger King, and if that expectation is not met, you are going to be upset.

If a reader picked up a Spider-Man comic and got a story about a 50 year old guy who was retired and teaching science classes at a high school in Queens, they would be upset. That isn't what they were expecting.

So since you can't REALLY change the title characters in a comic book series, what do you do? You replace them. They are gone for a while, and then when they come back, they feel fresh. It is way of changing a character without actually changing them.

[sullivan85]

The OPs point was spot-on, but the problem is that comic books are not written like screenplays. The difference is, screenplays have an actual arc. There is a beginning middle and end, or in screenwriting terms, a first, second and third act.

The inherent problem with comic books as a medium for storytelling (monthly, open ended comics anyway) is that they are ALL second act. There is never going to be an "ending." Also, the characters have to remain relatively unchanged from month to month. The Spider-Man you read about in 1967 is supposed to be fundamentally the same as the Spider-Man you read about in 1982 and 2009. The characters have to remain mostly constant, so they have to avoid change.

The problem with this is that change is the basis for great storytelling, from a writing theory point of view.

This is why series with an actual ending "Sandman, preacher, Y: The Last Man) tend to be so highly thought of in the comics field. Unlike other monthly titles that will go on indefinitely, the characters in these books CAN change, grow, even die. There is a real story arc.

But if you are writing a Spider-Man story, at the end of the day, when your arcs are all finished, Spider-Man has to be basically the same as when you started. People who pick up a Spider-Man cmic are expecting a certain thing and they are supposed to get it. When you walk into a Burger king, if they had no hamburgers, but offered you Chinese food instead, you would presumably be pretty angry. You had an expectation when you entered the Burger King, and if that expectation is not met, you are going to be upset.

If a reader picked up a Spider-Man comic and got a story about a 50 year old guy who was retired and teaching science classes at a high school in Queens, they would be upset. That isn't what they were expecting.

So since you can't REALLY change the title characters in a comic book series, what do you do? You replace them. They are gone for a while, and then when they come back, they feel fresh. It is way of changing a character without actually changing them.

Nicely put!

[philipj]

The OPs point was spot-on, but the problem is that comic books are not written like screenplays. The difference is, screenplays have an actual arc. There is a beginning middle and end, or in screenwriting terms, a first, second and third act.

The inherent problem with comic books as a medium for storytelling (monthly, open ended comics anyway) is that they are ALL second act. There is never going to be an "ending." Also, the characters have to remain relatively unchanged from month to month. The Spider-Man you read about in 1967 is supposed to be fundamentally the same as the Spider-Man you read about in 1982 and 2009. The characters have to remain mostly constant, so they have to avoid change.

The problem with this is that change is the basis for great storytelling, from a writing theory point of view.

This is why series with an actual ending "Sandman, preacher, Y: The Last Man) tend to be so highly thought of in the comics field. Unlike other monthly titles that will go on indefinitely, the characters in these books CAN change, grow, even die. There is a real story arc.

But if you are writing a Spider-Man story, at the end of the day, when your arcs are all finished, Spider-Man has to be basically the same as when you started. People who pick up a Spider-Man cmic are expecting a certain thing and they are supposed to get it. When you walk into a Burger king, if they had no hamburgers, but offered you Chinese food instead, you would presumably be pretty angry. You had an expectation when you entered the Burger King, and if that expectation is not met, you are going to be upset.

If a reader picked up a Spider-Man comic and got a story about a 50 year old guy who was retired and teaching science classes at a high school in Queens, they would be upset. That isn't what they were expecting.

So since you can't REALLY change the title characters in a comic book series, what do you do? You replace them. They are gone for a while, and then when they come back, they feel fresh. It is way of changing a character without actually changing them.

While I agree with this, I do think that some of the popular titles today featuring flagship characters are popular because they changed. Take Superman for example. The introduction of New Krypton completely shook up his status quo, and so the Superman we knew who was self-reliant but alone in Metropolis (Act I) is now exploring this new world and how he might fit in it (Act II). While this story may end with Superman saying, Screw y'all, I'm going back to Metropolis, there will at least be some form of conclusion and, if written well, some change in Superman as a result.

I'm not saying the Act III change has to be huge. Spider-Man doesn't need to figure out he's really an accountant at heart and move to Hoboken and work on people's taxes. But, at the same time, I would argue that characters don't change at all. Clint Barton has gone through enormous change in the past few years, and his character is gradually changing with each issue of Avengers.

My main argument still remains, Bruce Wayne was too good at being Batman. DC had written themselves into a corner where Batman was no longer a character, he was a god.